File talk:Wadc.png

license
How do you know it wasn't taken on a Free OS? You're assuming the window chrome was drawn by windows. But this is a Java app, which manages its own chrome. Also, you aren't the copyright holder in either case, so I don't see why/how you have the right to change the copyright declaration made by the actual copyright holder. -- 81.128.178.178 04:13, 15 April 2016 (CDT)


 * follow-up quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Software_screenshots#Choice_of_platform
 * "consensus has indicated that some Windows themes, such as "Windows Classic" and Windows 8's "Metro" theme, are too basic for copyright protection due to their geometric nature (and can be included without problem on screenshots of FOSS running on that platform)"


 * First off I have the right because I am the owner of this website and I am personally responsible for any rights issues that might come up; declaring something as fair use when there is any uncertainty about whether or not it can be freely licensed is always safer from a pure legal POV. However, putting that aside, your link is satisfactory and I will restore the previous licensing status (albeit not using the same template as that template is deprecated) --Quasar (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2016 (CDT)


 * Hi Quasar, thanks for updating the license category.
 * I have some slight concerns around your assertion that you are the owner of this website. I appreciate that, copyright ownership aside, the host of problematic content has some liability, and that's something I didn't raise earlier. But the host in this case would be Mancunet/Mike, rather than yourself. And there's no doubt that you have been the leader and main driving force behind this whole project for the longest time now, and we really couldn't do without you. But what troubles me is, to what extent do you think we are working together, or *for* you? I'm concerned that if we are at loggerheads on an issue, are you/could you/might you pull rank on us? -- Jdowland (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2016 (CDT)


 * From a legal accountability POV I am the owner. If there is a problem, it will come to me and I will be held accountable for it. Issues could also come to Manc, because he currently owns the server, but the Terms of Service state my location as the venue for legal disputes. That is the only sense in which I mean that. The Terms of Service clearly outline that it is the community who set policies and police stuff like content. So my point above was that when there's a doubt about the licensing status of an image, it's just safer to call it fair use than to assign a more specific license template to it. In this case I was proven wrong (and oddly from previous revisions I seem to have known about this in the past and it slipped my mind) and reverted the change. I will note that shots using the Windows XP and Windows 7 UIs are not subject to the same graces because those UIs are considered even by plebs with no legal qualifications to be artistic enough to exceed the threshold of originality required in US copyright law. Such images technically need the "Microsoft" copyright tag, which isn't compatible with FOSS content licenses like GPL, LGPL, FAL, or CC. --Quasar (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2016 (CDT)